On this day - July 20, 2009

THE council will debate plans to grant its staff legal powers to take action against owners of dangerous dogs.

Cllr Afzal Akram, the authority's cabinet member for enforcement, will ask councillors to support his motion calling for an investigation into the feasibility and cost of authorising staff to take enforcement action under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1992.

The move follows a shock RSPCA report earlier this year showing a huge increase in the number of reports of impromptu dog fighting, with Waltham Forest a hotspot.

It also comes just weeks after the Waltham Forest Guardian revealed that five people a week are now being treated for dog bites at Whipps Cross Hospital, in Leytonstone.

Cllr Akram said councillors are also receiving more complaints about dogs being used as weapons to intimidate people.

Cllr Akram said: “It is important that we tackle this, it is in the interests of the dogs themselves, who are mistreated to make them more malicious.

“It is also in the interests of the safety of our children, vulnerable people, and others walking the streets who are afraid – this is about taking our streets back.”

At present prosecutions are dealt with by Waltham Forest police as the council does not have the resources or power to tackle the problem, although it can take civil action.

Promoted Stories

Comments (4)

Yet another meaningless and useless piece of legislation to make them look like they are actively engaged in tackling problems which in this case does not, on the face of it, seem a massive one or a priority. Any such matter can easily be dealt with under existing by laws and criminal legislation by the police. This is more lip service. What happened to the 'anti-spitting' crackdown and 'anti-chewing gum' and 'anti-cigarette butt' crackdowns, launched with a fanfare of publicity with twenty or so fluorescent jacketed confused, council staff, chasing after one person at a time. Two people convicted and fined and not a Penny of the fine paid after the culprits absconded?

Yet another meaningless and useless piece of legislation to make them look like they are actively engaged in tackling problems which in this case does not, on the face of it, seem a massive one or a priority. Any such matter can easily be dealt with under existing by laws and criminal legislation by the police.
This is more lip service.
What happened to the 'anti-spitting' crackdown and 'anti-chewing gum' and 'anti-cigarette butt' crackdowns, launched with a fanfare of publicity with twenty or so fluorescent jacketed confused, council staff, chasing after one person at a time. Two people convicted and fined and not a Penny of the fine paid after the culprits absconded?Villagecranberry

Yet another meaningless and useless piece of legislation to make them look like they are actively engaged in tackling problems which in this case does not, on the face of it, seem a massive one or a priority. Any such matter can easily be dealt with under existing by laws and criminal legislation by the police. This is more lip service. What happened to the 'anti-spitting' crackdown and 'anti-chewing gum' and 'anti-cigarette butt' crackdowns, launched with a fanfare of publicity with twenty or so fluorescent jacketed confused, council staff, chasing after one person at a time. Two people convicted and fined and not a Penny of the fine paid after the culprits absconded?

Score: -1

Howard Wolowitz says...8:35am Mon 21 Jul 14

Police matter let them get on with it.

Police matter let them get on with it.Howard Wolowitz

Police matter let them get on with it.

Score: 0

myopinioncounts says...10:31am Mon 21 Jul 14

Has anyone investigated how many of the dogs involved in attacks are owned by people in social housing? Many high profile cases have involved people in social housing. If landlords had a strict rule against the keeping of dogs in their properties there would be fewer of these incidents.

Has anyone investigated how many of the dogs involved in attacks are owned by people in social housing? Many high profile cases have involved people in social housing.
If landlords had a strict rule against the keeping of dogs in their properties there would be fewer of these incidents.myopinioncounts

Has anyone investigated how many of the dogs involved in attacks are owned by people in social housing? Many high profile cases have involved people in social housing. If landlords had a strict rule against the keeping of dogs in their properties there would be fewer of these incidents.

Score: 2

tjm01 says...12:54pm Mon 21 Jul 14

myopinioncounts wrote…

Has anyone investigated how many of the dogs involved in attacks are owned by people in social housing? Many high profile cases have involved people in social housing. If landlords had a strict rule against the keeping of dogs in their properties there would be fewer of these incidents.

Not sure social housing and dog attacks should be linked, but as you rightly say the high profile cases do involve persons living in social housing, this is however a sad refelection on the dog owners who in many cases have the dog either as a trophy or for protection for their drug dealing, either way the police do have the powers to remove any dog which is considered to be dangerous, the issue is in many cases the dog will have had to attack and/or bite someone or before any action is taken and even then the "poor old dog brigade" are up in arms The simple solution is to ensure ALL dogs are muzzeled when in public places, now tha comment will really set the hare running

[quote][p][bold]myopinioncounts[/bold] wrote:
Has anyone investigated how many of the dogs involved in attacks are owned by people in social housing? Many high profile cases have involved people in social housing. If landlords had a strict rule against the keeping of dogs in their properties there would be fewer of these incidents.[/p][/quote]Not sure social housing and dog attacks should be linked, but as you rightly say the high profile cases do involve persons living in social housing, this is however a sad refelection on the dog owners who in many cases have the dog either as a trophy or for protection for their drug dealing, either way the police do have the powers to remove any dog which is considered to be dangerous, the issue is in many cases the dog will have had to attack and/or bite someone or before any action is taken and even then the "poor old dog brigade" are up in arms
The simple solution is to ensure ALL dogs are muzzeled when in public places, now tha comment will really set the hare runningtjm01

myopinioncounts wrote…

Has anyone investigated how many of the dogs involved in attacks are owned by people in social housing? Many high profile cases have involved people in social housing. If landlords had a strict rule against the keeping of dogs in their properties there would be fewer of these incidents.

Not sure social housing and dog attacks should be linked, but as you rightly say the high profile cases do involve persons living in social housing, this is however a sad refelection on the dog owners who in many cases have the dog either as a trophy or for protection for their drug dealing, either way the police do have the powers to remove any dog which is considered to be dangerous, the issue is in many cases the dog will have had to attack and/or bite someone or before any action is taken and even then the "poor old dog brigade" are up in arms The simple solution is to ensure ALL dogs are muzzeled when in public places, now tha comment will really set the hare running

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here